3 ms·
You are confusing "a scientific test for consciousness" with "a scientific theory of consciousness". False positive and negative rates are not particularly new
by saalweachter 8y ago
You are confusing "a scientific test for consciousness" with "a scientific theory of consciousness".
False positive and negative rates are not particularly new to science or medicine. When we run blood tests to determine if a person has a particular disease, some percent of people with the disease will be tested as not having it, and some percentage of people without the disease will be tested as having it. Just because we fail to detect something accurately 100% of the time doesn't mean we don't understand it.
- AnIdiotOnTheNet 8y agoYou're missing the point, which is this: How do you know your scientific test is accurate? With a disease, we know by looking at the results of people who were inoculated or treated vs those who weren't. This is possible because data is objective. When you are making your magic consciousness detector, how will you know when it is working?
- saalweachter 8y agoWhy do you need a consciousness detector/test at all to study the nature of consciousness and develop a falsifiable theory that explains its origins, properties, and the conditions under which it can exist?
- AnIdiotOnTheNet 8y agoIf you have a theory about the conditions under which consciousness can exist, you will need to test it. How will you test that theory if you cannot tell what is and isn't conscious in the first place? Let's say my theory says that rocks are conscious and hippos are not. Without some means of detecting consciousness this theory is untestable.